Interesting to note that he "affirmed" the Loyal Oath on taking his seat in Parliament, as opposed to "swearing" on a religious text. It all seems a bit strange when viewed against his rabid catholicism of not so long ago

His explanation as i understood it is that there is no question he could swear allegiance to the queen etc and actually mean it, as he has absolutely no such allegiance, and so that's the reason he could not "proper swear" on a holy book.

In fact, unless Jemima Khan's transcription is further faulty, in the New Statesman article it said:

He appears to be talking bollox then (not for the first time), here's the affirmation:

Members who object to swearing the oath are permitted to make a solemn affirmation under the terms of the Oaths Act 1978:

I... do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law.

If the quote was accurate, then he would in effect be saying is that he lied on oath, as although he read out the words, the truth is that he bears no allegiance to QE whatsoever. The result is seemingly he would view it as an unacceptable thing to say that lie under a religious oath (can't be upsetting your god) but if you affirm instead, that's OK even if you don't actually mean it, as you're not upsetting your god.

I recall that the NI Sinn Fein MPs never took their seats or claimed any allowances etc as they were not entitled to as they would not on principle take the oath of allegiance. Clearly they didn't think that doing so with your fingers crossed (a la Tony Banks) was the right thing to do.

Came across a case a few years back where a party to a civil trial refused to take the oath on the holy book, unless the judge promised that if he took the oath, the judge would accept that every word of his evidence was true, as he couldn't allow a situation where he had sworn on the book but a court disbelieved him.

So, if he thinks being called a Muslim is derogatory, and thus requires legal action, how will some of new constituents respond to that?

I thought that, bar a few, they're generally ok with people not believing in Islam or becoming a Muslim. Its becoming a Muslim and then abandoning the faith that's the real no no?.

TBF as I read it (and it is confusing) his beef seems to be with being in effect called a liar, he says he denied attending any such ceremony and that he denied it to Khan, they insist he never did and that it's all on tape. Also Khan says someone who was at the ceremony told her about it. So the libel issue is, is he lying that there never was such a ceremony? (Probably.)

yeah their really peaceful.

Apostasy covers everything from leaving the 'faith' to denying the existence of God.

Thanks to Minty for the link

[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9232269/Gay-marriage-Pope-representatives-calls-for-Catholic-alliance-with-Muslim-and-Jewish-groups.htmlPope's representative calls for an alliance of churches to oppose gay marriage[/url

The sooner we distance the legislature from this bunch of nutters, the better.

The majority are, yes.

Just as it's not a majority of Christians (or even fundamentalist Christians) who have taen to harassing staff and patients at clinics that carry out abortions in the UK.

One of the questions, though, is about what seems to be a rise in fundamentalism, across religious groups, in recent years.

This is what I don't understand, how can you be peaceful and follow these scrips?

How can a religion that demands pain and suffering ,weather in this life or the next, be peaceful?

The rise is actions against each others rise, they both have prophecies.

Well that covers all the 'big three' Abrahamic religions, then.

The [iOld Testament[/i, which Judaism, Christianity and Islam all accept, is full of violence and calls to violence.

It's always a question of interpretation – but the more fundamentalist the believer, the more they will pick bits and pieces of the really unpleasant stuff to claim is true. So you'll have people using 'an eye for an eye' as a justification for capital punishment, for instance.

All religious people play pick and mix with their holy texts.